Judge rules foreign students' have 1A right to support Hamas, can't be deported

FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, celebrated their win against the Trump administration in the deportation case against "a noncitizen student holding an F-1 visa issued by the United States." Greg Lukianoff's FIRE wrote "FIRE won a huge First Amendment victory today. And before anyone mischaracterizes it: This ruling does NOT say the government must admit anyone, issue anyone a visa, or grant anyone citizenship.

"It says that once a person is lawfully here, the government cannot deport them because they engaged in protected speech. The government cannot tell a legal immigrant: An American is free to say this, but if you say it, you’re out. That’s the principle we sued to defend. And today we won."

The ruling states that "Plaintiffs allege that, since March 2025, the government has changed its immigration policy and pattern of enforcement, namely by arresting, detaining, and deporting students with F-1 visas when those students use their freedom of speech to express opinions that the government does not like—such as expressing support or empathy for Palestinian people, or criticizing Israel's actions regarding the Palestine or the conflict in Gaza."

Part of Wise's ruling is that the threat of visa revocation led to a chilling of speech by the Plaintiffs, who felt that they were no longer free to publicly advocate for the Palestinian cause, which is one of Israeli eradication. "Stanford Daily," ruled Wise, "on behalf of its members, has adequately demonstrated facts to support that its members have ‘an actual and well-founded fear that’ the Deportation and Revocation Provisions will be enforced against them, and that members refrained from expressive activity based on their reasonable fear that the government may disapprove of their speech as to Israel and Palestine, much like the government’s disapproval of the speech of Khalil, Öztürk, and Mahdawi."

What the court and Plaintiffs refer to as "expressing support or empathy for Palestinian people," Marco Rubio and the Trump administration call "supporting Hamas," preventing Jewish students from going to class, and staging violent actions on college campuses. The ruling mentions Israel 102 times on 37 of the 90 pages, and it's worth noting that it was students on college campuses, many from the Middle East, including Gaza, who were the most vocal about support for Hamas and the Palestinian cause. A Stanford professor was suspended after targeting a Jewish student following the Oct. 7 attacks.

University of Minnesota law professor and author Ilan Wurman said "FIRE does amazing work, but this is just wrong. The government is in fact allowed to condition public privileges—including immigration privileges—on the recipient forgoing rights he might otherwise have, so long as the condition is germane to the privilege. The government should absolutely be able to kick out foreigners if they say things like death to America or whatever. (Not sure exactly what these individuals said, but I am making a point about the broader principle.)"

The questions that arise from this case and the ruling are namely: was the speech engaged in by these noncitizen immigrant students incitement for terrorism or was it protected First Amendment expression? Did these foreign students lie on their visa applications when they claimed that they do not support terrorist group and/or the overthrow of the United States government? Does a 1A protection mean that the government cannot deport someone? 

"FIRE takes a right everyone has — speech — and uses it to import a right only citizenship guarantees: the right to remain in America," said Fox News' Will Ricciardella. "Americans cannot be deported from their own country. But noncitizens can be removed from a country that admitted them conditionally, and SCOTUS said a noncitizen’s continued residence “is not his right but is a matter of permission and tolerance.” The 1st Amendment cannot smuggle citizenship into a visa or a green card."

Columbia University Gaza agitator Mahmoud Khalil and others will benefit from this ruling and they were mentioned in the case as having been targeted by the Trump administration for their support of Hamas. The student in the case, listed as Jane Doe, brought the suit after the State Dept. moved to revoke her visa and the visas of activists who had been agitating on college campuses, encouraging unrest and apparent violence, during the pro-Palestine student uprisings following the terrorist massacre in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Khalil said it was "racist" to ask Palestinian students like himself to condemn terror group Hamas.

It was after that massacre carried out by Hamas that so many foreign students in America began advocating for Hamas and the eradication of Israel. Say what you will about Israel, but do we really want foreign students boosting calls for massacre and the eradication of nations?

The Center for Immigration Studies, CIS, stated that it was absolutely constitutional to deport Khalil and others like him who came under State scrutiny. CIS bucked Khalil's claim that once he was detained he was a "political prisoner," citing the 1969 SCOTUS decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which said that speech "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" is not First Amendment protected. The Trump administration said that Khalil was espousing terrorism, and if he was advocating for Hamas terrorists, wasn't that exactly what he was doing?

Wise concluded that the Court "denies Plaintiffs' requested relief... under the Deportation Provision, as only the Supreme Court may provide that relief." When bringing the case in August 2025, FIRE said Trump was "trying to turn the inalienable human right of free speech into a privilege contingent upon the whims of a federal bureaucrat, triggering deportation proceedings against noncitizens residing lawfully in this country for their protected political speech regarding American and Israeli foreign policy."

At issue is the nature of this speech. Was it inciting violence or was it just basic 1A protected yammering? The court determined it was the latter. The State determined it was the former. The Trump administration has not yet appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.